Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 15 October 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Skepticism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Aspartame controversy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-03-11 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Scientific publications -- weak Gone --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Alleged conflict of intrerest prior to 1996 -- should this be merged into discussion of approval? Expand : Why the US approval process caused controversy Charges of COI in DOJ handling of FDA's Fraud allegations against Searle. Charges of COI in hirings of 6 FDA personnel (described in GAO 86 report to Metzenbaum) Studies by Olney and others dismissed. Expand and integrate the timeline in the article Charges of COI when new FDA commissioner overturned unanimous decision of PBOI Senator Metzenbaum's role in returning the controversy to the news. Why the Ramazzinni studies contribute to the controversy Allegations of COI in industry-funded critiques of Soffritti studies ... NPOV : Remember that parts of this article that deal with medical safety follow WP:MEDRS and should rely on secondary sources and must reflect the preponderance of medical opinion, while other parts of this article that deal with historical, social, legal, etc. aspects explain the controversy should rely on secondary sources as much as possible but are not subject to WP:MEDRS. Verify : Different types of sources are appropriate to different sections of this article. Priority 1 (top)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Timelines collected by editors of this article -- of sources, or well-sourced

re: Neurological and psychiatric symptoms section

From the previous article page- "Numerous allegations have been made on the Internet and in consumer magazines purporting neurotoxic effects of aspartame leading to neurological or psychiatric symptoms such as seizures, headaches, and mood changes.

I do not know about mood changes or seizures, but if i just SIP a diet soda, within a couple minutes a massive migrane behind the eyeball headache hits me. IF I eat something low-cal diet food containing this, i get violently ill and spend the next day ill as well.

A friend thought i was BS'ing and mixed me a drink of diet cola and rum. One sip and I had a massive headache. This is not BS.

I have never heard from or been contacted for any study related to NutraSweet/Aspartame. I have talked to other people who have this same sensitivity or allergy to the neutra sweet. So we read labels to make sure we just AVOID it.

I had to complain to a soft drink manufacturer once because I opened a can of regular soda, took one sip and after a minute the migraine headache started. They confirmed that the diet and regular were bottled on the same line. They sent me a free coupon for a 12 pack, and an apology promising to review their cleaning process between production change over. Since that time I have drank their product and had no further issues.

Why am I writing this? Because the previous article page makes it sound like NOBODY has a problem with this stuff when that is BS. I DO. I welcome anyone to contact me about it. This is not an internet smear campaign. This is a fact of life I have to deal with every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.123.59 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is not a place for discussing your personal opinion about the topic, but how to improve the article using reliable sources. Your personal testimonial does not qualify, and any further off-topic discussion should be removed. Yobol (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean you don't believe in the n=1 research study????? You skeptic you. OrangeMarlin 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"I know a guy" is not a source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A number of people do report this type of reaction, but that when they are entered into studies the effects cannot be replicated. They only react if they know or believe they are consuming aspartame. Perhaps the article could explain it better. TFD (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Food Standards Agency is wrapping up a study based on these types of testimonial results. It might be best to wait for the results before commenting. Yobol (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's like the whole MSG controversy (which, if you just change the names of the chemical, sound very much alike). People complain about effects, yet in a blinded study, the placebo group exhibits the effects at the same rate as the MSG group. People make their decision on anecdote, yet the cause of someone getting headaches or whatever from drinking a soda could result from the carbonation, colorings, sodium content, etc. etc. etc. This is why we should make decisions on what we consume and how we treat our health on solid evidence. OrangeMarlin 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Today was the first time I ever tried diet coke, and I have never heard of aspertame before. Yet, I mysteriously got a headache right after I drank it. (And no, I have never gotten a headache after drinking regular coke.) I guess my sub-conscious peered into the future and saw me reading about possible side-effects of aspertame, starting off a headache as a result, eh? Iateyourgranny (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Add your sarcasm to a diet coke for a delicious cocktail.... As I stated above, 'I know a guy' is not a research study. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This subject is about people/s health and laboratory tests have determined that any who professes to be sick from aspartame is faking. The government knows best what is good for you. Quione (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading claims of the safety of methanol in aspartame

The page claims that Aspartame contains less methanol than fruit juice, citrus fruits and fermented drinks. However naturally occuring methanol is always (the mentioned ones are) accompanied by ethanol which is an antidote to methanol, as stated on the wiki page. So in my eyes, those claims are wrong and misleading.

Also, even the danger of methanol itself is being downplayed significantly in this article. The wiki article of methanol clearly defines it as highly toxic for humans. Tyronx (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Toxicity is dose dependent - there are trace amounts of arsenic in bottled mineral water, that doesn't mean you'll get arsenic poisoning from drinking it. The article isn't downplaying the danger of methanol poisoning, it is putting things in perspective. That's what we're supposed to do. --Six words (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The first result when googling for "bottled water arsenic" actually redirects to a trustful looking Website that claims 56 million people in the US are consuming water with unsafe levels of arsenic. To include the perspective I can also phrase my argument to something like "The danger of methanol itself, in the concentrations present in most artificially sweetened food products, is being downplayed significantly." - but it doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a clear bias to the safety of aspartame in this article. -Tyronx (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not aspartame really is safe is, policy requires that we present mainstream thinking which is that it is safe. Of course readers are free to follow the links to both scientific and anti-Aspartame sites and decide what they wish to believe. TFD (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Research has shown that in the concentrations that are present in artificially sweetened food products methanol isn't dangerous, which is what I was getting at. So yes, when you're ingesting aspartame, as it is metabolised methanol (and subsequently formaldehyde) is formed, but the concentrations are so low that your body can handle them without any problem. That's not downplaying, that's stating what research tells us. --Six words (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The mere existence of this controversy page is a clear indicator to me that in fact the safety of aspartame is not quite mainstream thinking. If the article already mentions the anti-aspartame sources, shouldn't this controversy also being taken into account for the other parts of the articles? (referring to the paragraph about the safety of methanol in aspartame) - Tyronx (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You have to differentiate between scientific mainstream opinion and public opinion. The existence of this article is due to public opinion. --Six words (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many other articles about non-mainstream thinking, e.g., truthers, birthers, intelligent design, global warming skeptics, etc. While they are legitimate topics, their views do not have parity with mainstream opinion. TFD (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Scientific mainstream opinion holds that Bigfoot has no zoological or anthropological niche to exist in. The existence of a folk legend of a tall ape with a man-like gait doesn't invalidate that fact. --King Öomie 13:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I fail to find any citations on this page claiming that the methanol concentrations are low enough for the body to be handled without problem. In fact, the only justification for the safety of methanol is on the grounds that natural products contain even greater amounts of methanol, which is irrelevant due to the antidote (ethanol) contained as well in these products - as I already mentioned in my first comment. The methanol paragraph should incorporate this. - Tyronx (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ingesting aspartame at the 90th percentile of intake would produce 25 times less methanol than would be considered toxic", cited to (currently) footnote#55. That ref looks like a fairly comprehensive review article (secondary/tertiary reference in a reliable-sounding source). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Another review article dealing with aspartame toxicity that has a section on methanol: (the full text can be downloaded as pdf document). --Six words (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the article and taking the time to consider my argumentation. Unfortunately the paper does not cover the long term effects of aspartame intake for humans. Let me quote 2 sentences from this article: "According to the MRCA (36, 37), an aspartame intake of 34 mg/kg body weight represents the 99th percentile of projected daily ingestion." and "When ingesting aspartame at 34 mg/kg body weight, blood methanol concentrations were below the limits of detection (0.4 mg/dL).". Now, according to the blood methanol chart in the article, the peak level of methanol for an adult having administered 100 mg/kg aspartame was at 1.1 mg/dL. Crudely assuming linearty between the administered aspartame and methanol level in the blood we could say that 34 mg/kg results in approximately 0.36 mg/dL. The average human adult body has 5 litres of blood. So at 0.36mg/dL this means the body contains 18 mg methanol. However, the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY has derived an oral RfD (reference dose) for methanol of 0.5 mg/kg/day, which is 35 mg/day for an average weight adult (70kg) - not far away from the 18mg methanol in human blood we estimated (and the EPA talks about oral intake, so 100% of that would need to go into the blood). However, those average intake estimates are from 1974. Newer sources suggest average aspartame intake may be as high as 200 mg/day, and even the wiki page for Diet Pepsi states that it contains 124 mg aspartame per 350ml drink. Something seems really wrong about this. - Tyronx (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to expect that the relationship is linear - and even if it was linear, an amount that is half the RfD isn't close to the Rfd (which, by the way, is still considered safe) - that's like saying the distance from London to Cardiff is less than half the distance between London and Edinburgh, therefore London is not far away from Cardiff.
200 mg/day means on average, people dring less than two cans of diet pepsi - for a 70 kg adult that would be 2,85 mg/kg/day. I don't see a problem with that, and it's well below the set ADI of 40 mg/kg/day (EU) and 50 mg/kg/day (US).--Six words (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the number of 2,85 mg/kg/day? -Tyronx (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's basic math: 200mg/day divided by 70kg. Straightforward calculations and conversions are not considered original research.Novangelis (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that to include any medical claims (such as the toxicity of the methanol component of aspartame at the doses used as a sweetener), we would need a reliable source for medical claims such as a peer-reviewed medical review. As far as I know, no such source exists (the only sources that do make the claim about methanol do not meed WP:MEDRS and therefore cannot be included in a discussion about true safety). Yobol (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the EPA oral RfD reliable enough? The article posted by Six words states that approximately 10% of aspartame is converted to methanol. - Tyronx (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Crudely assuming linearity" is original research. Stick to MEDRS.Novangelis (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your link does not mention aspartame and therefore cannot be used. TFD (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see that I lack the evidence to conclude that the methanol levels in APM are unsafe. Thanks for all the provided sources. But so far I still didn't see any evidence that methanol levels in aspartame and the methanol levels in natural products (juice, citrus fruit, fermented products) are compareable. As I mentioned in my first argument, natural products always contain ethanol which is a antidote to methanol. If there is no reliable source proving that these can be compared, I'd like to adjust that paragraph. -Tyronx (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Tyronx, do you have an RS to substancitate your proposed alterations? Shot info (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethanol isn't an "antidote" for methanol itself, it simply reduces the toxic effects of its metabolites. And it doesn't really cure or inhibit or detoxify them either, it merely reduces their concentration by stretching out the time of its metabolism (the total amount of metabolites is about the same, just gives less at a time for longer time). DMacks (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethanol as a "magic bullet" cure for Methanol poisoning factored into an episode of House, but like most single-dose miraculous cures on that show, it was only loosely anchored in medicine. --King Öomie 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In order to claim that the methanol produced by the breakdown of aspartame is toxic, we need a source that makes that claim. If we want to compare its effects with those of methanol from fruit juice we need a source that makes the comparison. We cannot provide our own speculation on toxicity, because it would be synthesis. It seems however that if toxicity were a problem, that we would see diet soda drinkers regularly failing breathalyzer tests. TFD (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, isn't Methanol toxic in levels far below those that would cause BACs above the legal driving limit? --King Öomie 13:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

secondary sources

The problem here is the rule that in health related issues only papers that have been referenced by secondary sources are admitted. In this kind of rule one would think that the secondary sources would be required to come from a different origins than the original paper but this is not so. In the case of aspartame this rule allows papers that have been published by the corporations that produce aspartame to be backed up by books either printed or edited by these same corporations. These papers become fair play for this Misplaced Pages article while papers produced by independent scientists with pure research and public health as their goals are not allowed.

If secondary sources were to have the beneficial effect they presumably were intended for they should not share the same origins as the original papers.

The entire situation is quite sad as it makes it possible to for a heavily biased source to effectively eliminate any type of opposition even when supported by research. Arydberg (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Papers published by the corporatiions that produce aspartame are not allowed to be used to support medical claims. TFD (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

page 702 of reference 8 states that it was sponsored by Ajinomoto. Arydberg (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Funding and publishing are different. As noted, there was no direct contact, or even identity known, between the sponsor, authors, and peer reviewers of the article. Yobol (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And even worse is an apparent logical fallacy: you implicitly rely on the assumption that there not a substantial body of non-corporate secondary-sources. That's demonstratively not true, give that this article cites many of them. Look at all those journal-articles! Look at all those government review boards and their publications! DMacks (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at number 50. It does not work. I suggest you fix it with this. http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Food-Safety/Asda-settles-nasty-legal-spat-with-Ajinomoto-over-sweetener-aspartame 64.134.68.240 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. TFD (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

While your claim regarding corporate studies is entirely untrue, even if it were, this would not be the correct venue in which to discuss WP policy. If you don't like Misplaced Pages's policies, bring it up on the respective policy talk page. Nformation 09:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

reference 8 is too old.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article suffers from various deficiencies. Among these are the following. 1) The papers were all chosen between January and September of 2006. In the ensuing five years there have been many more publications that should be considered. 2) In the response to the cases of people who suffered from seizures that ceased after quitting of aspartame the paper expects their complaints to be “confirmed by a subsequent challenge” This is unreasonable. ( page 690) 3) The response ot the 3326 complaints received by the CDC is dismissed as antidotal and without “complete medical records” This is also unreasonable (page 690). 4) The Weissman study and the Bressler report are not included. Arydberg (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In response only to your first point, what new sources would you like to be considered? Nformation 09:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum. Trying to repost the same news story about a study which has not been published in the medical literature and which does not mention aspartame as previously discussed is not going to advance the article in any way, shape or form. When you persisted prior to your topic ban, you were reminded of WP:IDHT. Several aspects of WP:Tendentious editing are clearly being met:

• One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
• One who repeats the same argument without convincing people
• One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject

Enough.Novangelis (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made no edits.

Yes I have been persistent but I am not the only one with this opinion. Others that support my side include Dr. John Olney Senator Howard Metzenbaum as well as numerous others that have appeared on this site and have either quit in disgust or been banned.

Presumedly we should all be looking for a neutral point of view. The title of this article includes the word “controversy” I hold an opinion that it should present both sides of the issue. Am I missing something?

This article has 20 references to a paper published by the manufacturer of aspartame. This has the appearance of impropriety even if it was written with the sponsor's name secret. The sponsor still had the option of withholding the article. 70.172.214.170 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page edits are edits. This ongoing effort to challenge the most intensive systematic review in the published medical literature is not productive editing. WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.Novangelis (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I was not aware that Informa (the publisher of Critical Reviews in Toxicology) was a manufacturer of aspartame, much less the manufacturer. A highly respected publisher with an editorial board in place published the article. That makes it a reliable source.Novangelis (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I refer once again to WP:MEDRS. Ref 8 is 4 years old, and clearly falls under the guideline as an acceptable timeline for inclusion in the article. The other complaints by Arydberg seem to be original research by the editor, which is not allowed. Should they want other information included, they need to find other reliable sources that addresses those concerns. What we are not here to do is dissect the pros and cons of a 99 page systematic review as Arydberg seems to be doing here. Yobol (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. MEDRS is very clear, as is OR. --Ronz (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok...I think it's time to invoke WP:SHUN. You've wasted enough of our time. Yobol (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest this thread be closed. Innuendo will not impeach a reliable source. Is there consensus?Novangelis (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is. Yobol (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information regarding aspartame's safety

Earlier today, I added the following research to the article:

However, Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, a retired neurosurgeon and author, describes in an interview how aspartame can damage DNA structure. He says that this, in turn, can cause cancer. "We know that when formaldehyde binds to DNA, it's very difficult to remove it. It will stay there for long periods of time. What that means is if you just drink a single diet cola today, or sweeten something with NutraSweet, you're accumulating damage every day. Eventually, you're going to produce this necessary pattern of DNA damage to initiate the cancer, and once you develop the cancer, the aspartic acid component of aspartame will make the cancer grow very rapidly. You've got a double effect; it's causing the cancer, and it's making the cancer multiply very rapidly."

The user User:Novangelis quickly removed the passage from the article. Novangelis, please explain why you believe the interview was not a reliable source. (Other members of the public, feel free to comment on this issue.)

- Alexbonline1 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS Nformation 00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Policy is straightforward. There is a high standard for sourcing medical claims. Material should be published in sources with a high degree of medical editorial oversight, typically review articles in journals. This came from a source that is nowhere near satisfying requirements.Novangelis (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This "aspartame controversy" article definitely does not explain why some people believe that aspartame is dangerous. Perhaps Template:Neutrality should be added to this article until its problems are resolved. I would have referenced a particular section that needs work, but the entire article lacks supporting evidence for the other side in this debate. - Alexbonline1 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has numerous comments explaining potential reasons people may believe the chemical is a problem, all cited and linked, including both chatroom-rumors and hoaxes and also the actual facts that it has potentially harmful metabolites, and so on. That's what's needed for a controversy article: supported statements about the various positions. What the article doesn't include is data or studies demonstrating that it is harmful (whereas it does include some demonstrating that it is not). Neutrality does not mean 50/50 with comparable amounts of studies on both sides, or even-handed "maybe but maybe not" stance on the issue. Instead WP:NPOV says we can only say what is supported and we must not omit what is supported if that supported material leads to a certain conclusion or position on which side is more correct. And as others have said, WP:MEDRS is the standard for content that is supportable. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you say that. Here's a two examples right from the lead: "with critics alleging that the quality of the initial research supporting its safety was inadequate and flawed and that conflicts of interest marred the approval of aspartame" and "critics like anti-aspartame activist Betty Martini have promoted undocumented claims that numerous health risks (such as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, methanol toxicity, blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death) are associated with the consumption of aspartame in normal doses."

Now if you mean that the anti-aspartame beliefs are not presented as credible, then we're having two different conversations. WP does not present fringe claims as credible and instead reflects the mainstream scientific consensus on the matter (keep in mind that there is no controversy within the scientific community, the controversy is between scientific evidence and those in the public who refuse to accept it). Nformation 00:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is controversy within the scientific community. see: here and here and here and here.

here here here here here here here Arydberg (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you forgot that we already discussed most of them. Let me remind you of WP:MEDRS, and let me remind you to read what you link to first. If it doesn't say aspartame is to blame for something, then it doesn't support your position.--Six words (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Non-WP:MEDRS advocacy site (health-report.co.uk), 3rd year law school student paper, Daily Fail reporting on PMID 20592133 (Halldorsson), early conference abstract report of what was eventually PMID 18535548 (Fowler), report on as-yet unpublished research, PMID 21138816 (Polyák), non-WP:MEDRS advocacy site (dorway.com).

The usable sources here--the three PMID cites--discuss associations with aspartame/diet soda intake and preterm delivery (Halldorsson) or obesity (Fowler, Polyák) are not presently cited, however I'd prefer to use reviews for these matters. Reviews that cite Fowler et al include: PMID 20078374, PMID 19778754, PMID 20308626, PMID 20060008. No reviews have cited Halldorsson or Polyák yet, as far as I can tell. Halldorsson is somewhat problematic as the authors can only make inferences as to the relative consumption of aspartame or acesulfame-K, but since it's a large prospective clinical trial, I'd be willing to include it. Polyák is a rodent study behind a paywall (my institution has excellent subscriptions, so this is a bit of a red flag for me; the journal is poorly rated, too), so I'd be inclined to leave it out at this point.

So, thanks for pointing out a useful source, Arydberg. In the future, though, please stick to WP:MEDRS and leave dorway.com (and the like) at the doorway. — Scientizzle 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: I did not have time yesterday to look in-depth at the reviews I cited in the above comment. Now I'll present some very brief notes on each:

• PMID 20078374 - Excellent discussion of pros/cons of artificial sweeteners in beverages. I think the findings can generally be summed up thusly: "Epidemiologic studies of artificial sweetener use in children have generally shown a positive association between artificial sweetener intake (most commonly as diet soda) and weight gain..., causality is far from established with regard to artificial sweetener use and weight gain in children." Aspartame-specific comments are limited, but include: "encapsulated aspartame versus placebo in young people found no differences in blood pressure, glucose, or lipid profiles between groups "; children will more completely calorie compensate for aspartame-sweetened snacks but adults don't.
• PMID 19778754 - This contains some discussion about the pros/cons of artificially sweetened beverages, but no specific comments on aspartame.
• PMID 20308626 - There is some discussion about the pros/cons of diet soda generally, but the only direct discussion of aspartame follows: "...an increase in blood pressure spanning 10 weeks was found when individuals drank but not aspartame-sweetened beverages..."
• PMID 20060008 - not a classical review, but more of an narrative utilizing an animal model. Since it also only discusses saccharin, it doesn't seem like a good candidate for inclusion without running afoul of WP:SYNTH.

I think the first three are a shoe-in for the diet soda article (which could use greater attention), but these four reviews may have only limited applications here without tripping over WP:NOR. — Scientizzle 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So perhaps the last line of the article "comprehensive reviews on this subject have concluded there is little to no data to support the assertion that aspartame adversely affects hunger or obesity." should be changed to include the research of Fowler. Arydberg (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, per WP:MEDRS we use scientific reviews. You have been told this many, many times now. Please stop with the tendentious editing, you have already been topic-banned once, don't force us to go that route again. Yobol (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, read sources carefully before you suggest we change the current wording. Which of the reviews Scientizzle linked to would support changing the last line? And what kind of change would it support?--Six words (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reference to Fowler's Work why is it excluded? Arydberg (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you suggest to include it? --Six words (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If I suggest an improvement it will be rejected regardless of the source. Your article gives the impression that aspartame is perfectly safe and all the people against it are cults or activists. While this may be true there is a wealth of research that indicates it’s use is unsafe. In ignoring this research you are promoting a additive that may seriously damage the health of many many people. To totally ignore, as you do, a 10 year epidemiological study that indicates use of aspartame causes an increased chance of stroke or the study of 60,000 pregnant women that indicates aspartame use leads to premature birth is unforgivable. The bottom line is that you absolutely refuse to publish anything that is negative on the use of aspartame. This is journalism of the worst kind. Arydberg (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists